More on the Removal of NPD from newest DSM

Because of the length of the following comment to the last post on this blog I'm presenting it on the front page.  The comments field is limited in terms of space so I'm putting it here.  I'm also putting it here because it deserves front and center placement as a professional opinion on the subject.  It provides some important historical background on the DSM that must be factored into this discussion.

*******************

As a psychiatrist with personal experience with NPDs, I fully concur with Anna's views that this change in the DSM is essentially a non-event for all the reasons she enumerated.  Perhaps some additional information about the DSM may be helpful in fully appreciating some of the reasons for its meretriciousness.  (To save some of you from consulting a dictionary, "meretricious" is defined as apparently attractive but having in reality no value or integrity.  I also use this word not unintentionally for its archaic meaning - of, relating to, or characteristic of a prostitute.)

Some of the individuals who first developed the DSM are well known among psychiatric circles to have severe NPD themselves.  The interests of one DSM "innovator" in particular were in statistics and in ways to categorize knowledge generally.  At the time in the 1960s, a dedicated system of classification of mental disorders was lacking.  Previously these disorders were given codes in a manual called the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) along with all other medical disorders.  Seeing an "opportunity," one DSM originator chose to go to medical school and specialize in psychiatry exclusively in order to have the credentials to create a classification system.  Medicine and psychiatry were merely means to another end.  The womb of the DSM resided in an obsessive individual who possessed a prominent dearth of humanity and who by the same token could have easily chosen to classify machine tools, toads or sea shells.  In addition, for the initial DSM there was very little consensus.  It is the product of just a few individuals.  This was the inauspicious inception of the run-away train we now call the DSM.

Another critical point to remember is that the primary impetus for a classification of mental disorders was for research purposes - not for clinical utility.  That is why it is a diagnostic and STATISTICAL manual.  The use of medications in psychiatry began in earnest in the 1950s creating a need to do clinical trials.  A system was needed to enable researchers to group individuals together diagnostically.  One cannot for example do a trial of a drug for schizophrenia without defining the population for which the medication is purported to be effective.  Thus the birth of the DSM and its subsequent revisions has been influenced in no small way by changes in the field of psychiatry and in pharmaceutical technology. 

The pharmaceutical industry is not the only one that has influenced the evolution of the DSM.  Since the 1980s, the health insurance industry has exerted an increasingly formidable influence on the way mental health disorders are viewed.  Because it determines the reimbursement of treatment services, it creates demands on the field for the EXPLICIT purpose of decreasing expenditures.  This industry has clearly had an impact on how individuals are diagnosed.  In stage one, personality disorders were excluded from any reimbursement.  The DSM then responded by creating all sorts of other reimbursable categories into which a psychiatrist could "fit" that patient.  More recently the insurance companies for reimbursement considerations have created strata of severity of mental illnesses in which, for example, major depression, schizophrenia and full-blown bipolar disorder are reimbursed more fully than other less debilitating "disorders" such as adjustment disorders, anxiety disorders, etc.

Perhaps one day a historian will go back and rigorously track the developments in the DSM against the developments in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.    I am convinced that we will see clear concordance.

And as other industries as well as cultural views continue to pressure and influence how we view behavior, thought and "feelings," the DSM will follow in kind.  One example is "Social Anxiety Disorder" as if there is one person who doesn't get anxious speaking in front of a group of people.  The list of inane diagnostic classifications is endless.

In order to keep ahead of the game, the DSM revisionists employ two other strategies.  The first has always been unspoken and is rarely contested: that all behavior, thought and "feeling" is under the purview of "mental health" and its soldiers, psychotherapists (psychiatrist, psychologists, etc.).  Should tomorrow many people start snapping their fingers frequently, the DSMers would have a classification for that in the next revision.  The underlying problem here is that there is no definition of "mental illness" or "mental disorder."

A fine example is just this topic:  NPD.  For years, I frequently have read laying down on my sofa and crossing my legs.  Now I have a knee problem, one that the orthopedic surgeon can directly relate to my bad reading habits.  With proper changes in behavior and stretching, the knee problem is much improved.  So is the case with malignant narcissists.  As this blog pointed out several times, "garbage in, garbage out."  If one goes through life executing malice and then must distort the truth in order to not be caught, one's thinking will become disordered.  That is NOT a mental disorder.  It is the ramification of a habit over which one can exert control.  The DSM makes no distinction between the ramifications of controllable and self-modifiable bad habits versus the ramifications of a process over which volitional control is impossible (e.g., schizophrenia). 

The second DSM strategy is to create categorical buckets so over-inclusive that it is irrefutable.  Hence nearly every "diagnosis" contains a "disclaimer" with language such as, "The present symptoms cannot be otherwise better accounted for by [another] diagnosis."  Or, another sub-category is created to allow for any exception to the rule.  This sub-category is termed "NOS" which stands for "Not Otherwise Specified."  Thus if someone complains of depression of a type that does not fit exactly with the sub-types enumerated in the DSM, that depression is deemed, "Not otherwise specified."

Therefore the DSM "takes all comers."  It is set up in a way that one cannot even attempt to challenge or refute it because it contains inherent escape clauses which are designed only to make it immune from any criticism.  Thus it exists to perpetuate its own existence.  It is a simulacrum; i.e., an image without the substance or qualities of the original.  Simulacra may contain elements of truth (e.g., the DSM's description of schizophrenia), but due to the lack of definition, coherence, mission  and integrity in its core being, its utility is best characterized by where my copy ended up.

One winter, I ran out of firewood...

One postscript.  It may appear that the DSM committee is composed of "academics" and not clinicians.  The distinction today is not very sharp as nearly all "academics" do clinical work.  (I know not a few of them and can vouch for that statement).  In my opinion, psychiatrists have thrown their hands up in trying to understand the "personality disordered" for which, not for nothing, they have little chance of obtaining research funding.  And although they will never publicly admit it, they don't want to even see those "bad and difficult patients" anyway.

*******************

The above was contributed by H2tat
http://www.blogger.com/profile/07402389084387348536

My Two Cents on NPD Being Removed from the Newest DSM

It seems there is some expectation that I have an opinion and need to weigh in on the latest news about NPD and four other personality disorders being removed from the upcoming DSM V since a few people have emailed me about this development. I haven't felt compelled to say anything because I've already stated what my position on psychiatry's labels is. In case you haven't read every word of this blog I'll consent to stating my reaction to the above news. It is more of a non-reaction, really.

Okay, to be systematic about this, the New York Times published an article on November 29, 2010 about the deletion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder from the upcoming DSM. You can find the article here. It is titled, "Narcissism No Longer a Psychiatric Disorder."

Let me state categorically that this deletion in no way affects any of the content of this blog. This blog is established on the authority of eyewitnesses as well as the authority of an objective morality not on the authority of the grand poobahs of psychiatry. I have been unimpressed with the so-called science behind the labeling game of this profession and have stated so on this blog. You know as well as I do that a pen stroke in some stuffy conference room doesn't dismiss the reality of those who are malignantly narcissistic. These pointy-headed academics cannot eradicate the colossal damage narcissists inflict in every realm of human interaction with their decision to shift or erase labels.

Here are a couple quotes from my own blog that should clarify for you how little this news affects my view of anything on this subject. In my article titled, "Narcissist or psychopath....both are human predators" I stated:

Speaking of categorization...I think we would all do well to remember the rather arbitrary lines that have been drawn up for us by the psych community. They are allowed the freedom to re-draw the lines as they deem necessary which only tends to prove the non-scientific nature of the categorization.

Rather a succinct statement for such a windy blogger. But there it is. The labels are not scientific. With this in mind, they can f*&% around with the labels all they want. It won't change a damned thing as far as we are concerned. It will change the way these people are given "treatment", but considering how few actually ever end up in a clinical setting I'm not sure it is going to affect much there either. All this newest deletion of NPD and four other labels does is prove my statement above...once again. Labels aren't science. They are names. What the academic egg heads decide to name a thing isn't going to change my view on those people out there who wreak their damage on everyone in their sphere of influence. Period.

In my blog post titled, "Irresponsible Journalism or Psychologists...or Both" I was talking about the psychoanalyzing of Blagojevich (then mayor of Chicago) going on in the media at the time. The quotes are longer to provide some of the context:

First of all, the so-called professionals love to tell us laypeople that we are not qualified to determine whether or not someone we know has NPD by comparing that individual's behaviors with an checklist. What the article from the Sun-Times illustrates to me is how the 'professionals' are the ones who are unqualified. I think it is highly unprofessional for a psychologist to make pronunciations on someone's mental state to the media when that psychologist has never even met the person in question. They should at least try to uphold some of the standards they hold the rest of us to. They tell us we can't diagnose persons whom we've grown up with or married or worked with for years yet, sight unseen, they can make absolute statements about a person's mental health just from reports they've read in the media and a few pictures of a person? Bah.

This is just one very good illustration of why you should ignore anyone, especially the 'professionals', who tells you that you can't tell whether or not someone in your life has NPD. They don't know Jack themselves. No one knows what NPD is more than someone who has suffered from its predations for years. Eggheads in ivory towers only know NPD from textbooks.

Obviously, I've already expressed how little reverence I have for the labeling game of the professionals. This being the case I'm not affected when they again play with their labels. Whatever. While they're masturbating themselves with their power to pronounce someone mentally ill or "normal" I'm content to know what I know. That is because I know what I know from extensive personal experience. I know what I've seen, heard and lived through, so the labels that are in the DSM, or that aren't in the DSM, don't affect my knowledge or shift my past experience in the least.

I used the label of NPD on this blog because of the ease of communication. It was a convenient label for a couple of reasons. First, because it was an objective listing of behaviors to compare someone's actions to in order to know that we're talking about the same animal. Second, the description of the behaviors and attitudes that this label represented has become rather well known to the general public which means that people who are searching for answers on this subject will usually use the label of NPD. So it made sense for me to use the psychological term for ease of communication and in order to reach as many people out there looking for answers as I could. I didn't use the label of NPD on this blog because I recognize the authority of psychiatry to draw the lines or make the labels correctly in every instance. They had it right with the over-arching description of Narcissistic Personality Disorder so I consented on that basis alone to use their label. They had the label right because it was restricted to describing what is observable about this personality type. Observation is the basis of real science. Therefore I wasn't opposed to using a label that was based on the scientific exercise of what can be observed. Because the label of NPD was a comprehensive, over-arching view of this personality type it has become a good tool for the clinicians out there who have to deal with these people in therapy. This reality tends to prove that the label was an effective description of the scope of behaviors seen in narcissists. Again, another vote in favor of the label NPD.

Even though I am dismissive of the "science" of labels I do recognize the great power this profession wields because of their generally accepted power to label. This profession's ability to apply labels to their fellow human beings has a potentially profound effect on lives. It is a power that is too often misused and can devastate lives. When I apply a label to a person I don't have that kind of power. That is because my labels don't have the authority to put someone into an institution without their consent therefore depriving them of their freedom. My labels can't force a person into therapy. My labels can't deny a person a job or put them in prison. My labels can't make money for innumerable doctors or sell pharmaceuticals. My labels are therefore quantifiably different than those that psychiatry makes. The power to name things is a significant thing when you are called a scientist and have the power brokers of society acceding to your right to make those labels.

All this being said, I suspect that this newest development will not be permanent. The article in the New York Times hints at the internal war that has commenced between the clinicians who actually deal with these people and the academics who largely don't. I'll be mildly interested to see who wins the war. I'm hoping that reality wins. Narcissists are not normal because they exist in large numbers. Narcissists are destructive and often dangerous to others. And by dangerous I don't just mean in the mortal sense. They are dangerous to the emotional and mental well-being of others. They destroy lives without necessarily taking lives. This is not normal. Not ever. The DSM manual may be the bible of the psychiatric world, but it isn't ours. Know what you know and let those in their cloistered halls of academe play their little naming games amongst themselves.

Book Review: The Narcissism Epidemic

I came across an older article by U.S. News & World Report that contains excerpts from the reporter's interview with one of the authors of the book, "The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement" and thought I'd highlight both the article and the book in a post. No, I haven't read the book as I only just found out about it, but I'm going to be buying it because it looks like a stellar treatment of the subject of narcissism from both the excerpts of this article and the reviews I've read.

It appears to me that we have a couple of Ph.Ds actually applying some science to the subject and, therefore, they break away from the usual cliches about narcissism that comes from pop psychology. I agree with all seven points in this article (for the most part) and I adore the answer to #4 (a little narcissism is healthy). I have not explicitly come out against this pat phrase that continually comes out in discussions about narcissism, but I've definitely in no way supported this belief on my blog. I don't and never have believed that "a little narcissism is healthy." Quoting from the article:

You have to ask, "Healthy for whom?" Narcissism is basically never healthy for other people. It tends to work out OK for the narcissist in the short term, but in the long term, they end up messing up their relationships at work and at home, and they end up depressed later in life.

Another way to phrase this is to substitute the word "narcissism" for "selfish". As in, "Selfishness is basically never healthy for other people..." You can decide to deny this but your denial won't ever change my mind. Selfishness always ends up subtracting from the lives of those around you. Now, don't go defining selfishness as the necessary care we must take of our persons. If we don't make sound decisions about how we take care of our health then we're useless to ourselves and everyone else. Stick to the true meaning of words. See here if you don't know the definition of selfishness.

I also want to hug these people for coming out against this blather: "You have to love yourself to love someone else". I have profoundly disagreed with this statement myself for many years now as I've come to see the truth of the matter. That these psychiatrists have actually grasped and unapologetically oppose this idea is surprising to me but thrilling. This idea of needing to love yourself first before you can love someone else is tirelessly chanted in Christian circles because of poor exegesis of Christ's statement to "love one another as you love yourself." What a good student of Scripture realizes is that God's perspective on how we love ourselves is that we do it unconditionally. So this statement is a command to love others as unconditionally as you already love yourself.


The U.S. News article can be found here.

If your mother was a narcissist then you'll understand this...

An interesting article appeared on the UK Daily Mail a few days ago. Erin Pizzey is stating a solemn truth that must be seriously considered by the world: that women are every bit as capable of cruelty and abuse as men are and that it is time to stop pretending that men have the corner on being abusers. She describes her childhood growing up with two abusive parents and describes her mother's abuse as being much worse:

...it was my mother's more emotional, verbal form of abuse that scarred me most deeply. She indulged in a particular kind of soul murder...

Those of us raised by a malignant narcissist mother certainly can understand what Erin is describing.

I won't be entertaining heated defenses of feminism in the comments section. Keep the comments confined to the point of this article...that women are just as capable of being abusers as men are. And women may very well be more damaging in their form of abuse because they understand the nuances of emotional and verbal slaughter and have more access to their children to carry out their abuses.

Read it and weep:

Why I loathe feminism... and believe it will ultimately destroy the family

Malignant Narcissism: A Brief Overview

Update: I'm moving this post up so it'll show on the front page. It seems a good idea to have it front and center for those who are new to this blog and/or the subject of malignant narcissism.

What is narcissism? Is it a simple case of being kinda self-involved? Is it just the human condition? This post will focus on the big picture of what this blog is about. Consider it orientation for people who are new to the subject and new to this blog.

This blog is about malignant narcissism which is another name for NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder as its called in the bible of psychiatry, the DSM-IV.) This isn't a blog about people who have a few narcissistic traits because that would mean talking about everyone on the planet. I'm not interested in throwing the whole planet into one box because it would render it a useless classification.

It is understandable that people who are unfamiliar with the terms "malignant narcissism" or "NPD" to not really know how completely different of an animal is being discussed here than the average human being. This blog isn't about assholes or debutantes. It is very possible to be a jerk or to be a self-focused princess and not have the disorder of NPD. If you label anyone who irritates or annoys you as a narcissist then you don't have a grasp of what this character disorder really is.

Every human being is bent to one degree or other toward selfishness. So to define NPD as "being selfish" is not a definition that makes any sense because it would just be statement about the whole human race that wouldn't help anyone identify the problem of human evil. Some people say that all humans struggle against being selfish and so are quick to state that we are all narcissists. Not so fast. The label is important because we are trying to identify a certain sub-set. There is a specific definition here that is important to grasp if you're going to be able to deal with the problems that proceed from calculated and predatory human evil which is at the root of the definition of malignant narcissism.

Let's look at the statement above, "...all humans struggle against being selfish." No, they don't. THAT is what this blog is about. The ones who don't struggle against their selfish urges. It is about those human beings who long ago gave up any struggle against their lusts, their selfish entitlement attitude, their demands, their need to control others. Some, I believe, have never put up a real fight against their own selfish demands. Malignant narcissism usually manifests at a very young age even though it never becomes an official diagnosis until adulthood because this is how the grand poo-bahs of psychology play the game of labeling.

There is a creature that exists in human form that has become distinctly different than those of us who do struggle against selfishness. In a very deliberate and conscious way these people have made a decision to not fight against their selfish impulses. They have embraced them. They have found ways to completely justify them. They are quite proud of their freedom to do anything they want to anyone they want. They may be quietly smug about it or openly boastful; nevertheless, they're proud of their ability to get their way.

They see themselves as set apart from mere humanity. They distance themselves from the human race by setting themselves apart from and above them. They do this by word and by action. They even usurp the very throne of God Himself as they position themselves as god over all they survey. They reserve to themselves the right to define reality to all in their domain. All this results in the train of woe that follows from the human embodiment of evil.

I make no apologies for referring to malignant narcissists as a "creature" or any other dehumanizing term I may use from time to time. I didn't dehumanize them. They do it to themselves. I'm just agreeing with them that they aren't like the rest of us...only, when I say it, I mean it in the most disparaging way unlike the narcissist who pretends himself apart from all the rest of humanity as proof of his superiority.

The outgrowth of the mental state of malignant narcissists as described above are very predictable and legion but it can be boiled down to some consistent traits seen among all who've dedicated themselves to human evil. I have covered these traits at length on this blog. I'll try to revisit some of these predictable behaviors and attitudes of the malignant narcissist in brief.

All malignant narcissists are cases of arrested development.
They are perpetually living in a mindset of a young child. The age when a child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong but very willing to do wrong if they think they won't get caught. Like a child, they feel entitled to whatever they want. Like a child, they recreate reality to suit their fantasy about themselves and the world around them. Like a child, they want all attention focused on them. But, unlike a child, the narcissist is not subject to being molded and shaped by authority figures or reality. The narcissist is determined (read here, conscious choice) to remain a child whereas most children are driven by a desire to grow up. Children are childish and there is no crime in that. I'm not pathologizing childhood. I'm highlighting that malignant narcissists are pathological children.

This state of being leads to the other realities about malignant narcissists which are all characterized by being pathological excess of whatever we're talking about:

The narcissist has a pathological need for all attention in every context he finds himself in.
It is so pathological that if you get any attention he is obsessed by the need to take it away from you because he imagines that if you get any that it is an unsurvivable diminution of this precious commodity for him.

This is attached to his transcendent sense of entitlement.
If he wants something then, in his mind, it belongs by native right to him. And because he wants every shred of human attention, warmth, regard, consideration, that means you can't have any. This is at the very bedrock of the narcissist's motivations. The need to have it all means he must take what you have. It makes you a target of his malevolent intent. It is the fountainhead of his ill will toward all others.

The malignant narcissist's pathological need to have it all leads to his existence of being pathologically envious.
In other words, the most pernicious, pervasive and all-consuming state of being covetous. This translates to him envying anything you have or are. So, picture a human being utterly possessed of a pathological need for all the attention and all good things which flow from human relationships and you have the framework for understanding the next identifying feature of the Malignant Narcissist Creature...

The malignant narcissist is a predatory animal.

He stalks his prey. He must do so because his malevolent intent is absolute and would frighten away any source of his supply if the target could easily discern his implacable nature and insatiable lusts and his intent to feed. So the narcissist transforms himself. He is an adept at making and wearing masks. He thrives on appearances. He is short on substance. People who are easily taken in by appearances and short on wisdom to discern substance are easy targets.

The malignant narcissist is a chameleon.
This is why so many people have a problem identifying what a narcissist is. To the superficial view malignant narcissists can appear to widely differ from each other. This narcissist here is a sophisticate with excellent worldly tastes, vast charm and a following of admirers. That narcissist over there is an unemployed alcoholic who lives off his wife or parents, abuses animals and his children, and hasn't amounted to more than a pile of shit his whole life. But both of these widely disparate appearances are adaptations to environment, I.Q., accident of birth such as physical beauty, advantages such as education, sex, etc. It is important to understand the chameleon-like adaptations all narcissists are capable of and not be fooled by these adaptations to miss the substance of what they are: a pathological mess of predatory urges that feeds off of the people around them.

How an individual narcissist presents himself or herself can cause huge variations in how a malignant narcissist appears to others, but make no mistake, these basic characteristics will be found in any of them. Both the charming sophisticate narcissist and the alcoholic loser are pursuing their favored forms of "narcissistic supply.", another term for the attention "drug" that every malignant narcissist junkie is pursuing his every waking moment. How they go about it looks very different, but in principle they are after the same thing.

All malignant narcissists are parasitical.
They need people around them from whom they can steal what they need. Their need for people is desperate, yet their desperate need presents a conundrum for them. Their need for people runs counter to their even more desperate need to not appear like they need anything from anyone, especially you! Never forget, they are gods in their own estimation which means that even while they steal, demand or extort what they need from you they will trash you for giving it. The more they need you the more you will be subjected to their loathing. It is paradoxical unless you understand what the hell is really going on. Which is what I'm describing for you now.

Stay focused on the narcissist as parasite. Because the malignant narcissist is a complete failure in the moral realm they must attach to sources of virtue. This is because no lie can exist without the truth. Evil can't exist without some appearance of good. How does the narcissist wear an appearance of virtue? Most commonly he surrounds himself with those who possess real virtue. The close proximity makes it easy for the malignant narcissist to steal virtue for his own image. Does the narcissist need to feel powerful? He may prop himself up or feed on those who have real power if he is lucky enough to sidle up to them, or he will surround himself with people who are weak so he can feel powerful by controlling them.

OR the narcissist can steal virtue and substance from her profession or from belonging to certain clubs or organizations or charities. Service professions are very attractive to malignant narcissists. So is religion. As is Motherhood. An example: the narcissist can get herself close to her prey of choice by her choice of profession. Does she like to seduce young boys? She may decide to become a teacher. She attaches herself parasitically to the profession's high claim of being concerned about the education of young people. Who would suspect she is not a teacher because of the usual reasons? By association everyone assumes a certain amount of goodwill and character due to her choice of job. This is her cover to then commence her predation of her favorite flavor of attention. She has parasitically attached herself to the good name of teacher. She is stealing virtue she doesn't possess so as to better reach her prey.

In every situation the parasitical narcissist is preening himself.
He needs a mirror to accomplish his acts of preening. That mirror is you. He plays to his mirrors. He poses in front of his mirrors to get the desired reflection back. When you show looks of interest, admiration, fear, concern, he is basking in his reflected self. His insubstantial self. A construct of reality he has created out of thin air. But see? He needs YOU to accomplish this. He needs you to hold up the mirror for him. But he isn't looking at you. He is only interested in his own reflection in your face. You don't exist as a person to him. You're a means to his end. The parasite takes what he needs with no thought or benefit going to the host. If you cease giving him what he wants he will move on to a better host. He is completely heedless of his tremendous and all-consuming need of people to accomplish this act of reflection. His preening is an extension of his parasitical lifestyle, yet he is unable to comprehend this.

We are only objects to the narcissist.
He can't comprehend it because he has transmogrified all the rest of us into objects. We have no needs that he must enter into his consideration. He is first and only in everything. He refuses (again, conscious choice) to see your humanity and the basic rights that come along with that humanity. You are nothing more than a tool in his hand, a pawn in his game, an object for his use. When done, he casts you aside as so much used toilet paper. People who believe the narcissist loves them are tragically naive and deceived. The narcissist has vast reservoirs of love, compassion and concern, but not one tiny bit of those things can be diverted from himself. He loves himself so utterly and completely there is no room for anyone else in his affections. The malignant narcissist is absolutely incapable of the true emotion of love for any other human being. Period. If you doubt me you will continue to suffer under the heartless tyranny of these blood-suckers. You can never successfully deal with a narcissist if you believe he loves you in any real way. He NEEDS you. But need is not love. His need is the need that will take and take and take with no concern as to whether his taking is killing you.

Even if you've not been in close contact with a malignant narcissist, with a little imagination you can follow these descriptions to some of their outcomes. All of those outcomes are attended with ill will. Not one motivation of the narcissist is concerned with anyone else's well-being. This is what makes them dangerous and evil. They are unsafe for human interaction. Do they see themselves as dangerous and evil? Very unlikely. Some do. Most don't. Remember that they have justified themselves on every point. The evil they perpetrate is most times seen by them as their righteous cause. They have turned evil into good and black into white. This is easy enough to accomplish for someone who has for a lifetime tinkered with reality as much as those around them have allowed.

As you can hopefully see by now, malignant narcissism isn't about everyday variety selfishness. I'll use the word again here, it is pathological selfishness. It is a selfishness that will destroy anything that gets in its way.

When I decided to start a blog and needed to pick a name for it I chose Narcissists Suck for a reason. It wasn't a flippancy. My nom de plume is that of a vampire slayer. Again, not a flippant choice. The primary meaning of this blog's title is a succinct statement of truth about all narcissists -- they suck the life out of their victims. Plus, I did really like the dual meaning of the title. The other meaning being the more casual statement of, "damn, these people SUCK."

Human evil is not of recent advent. It has been a part of human existence for as long as humans have existed. Some of the evidence of this fact is found in the many legends of evil of which the Vampire bears some startling correlations to what we know about malignant narcissism. Of course, there is no one definition or legend of vampires but there are some persistent themes. I'll list a few for your perusal.

The ability to hypnotize and/or charm their potential victims.
Light destroys them. (Light is analogous to truth.)
They are shape-shifters.
They are predatory. Especially of family and neighbors where they lived before they became "undead."
They can only exist by draining the blood, life-force, of their prey.
Despite their human appearance they aren't really human.
They can infect others with their vampirism.
Great powers of persuasion.
Hard to kill. Even starvation won't kill it though it will render them somewhat insane. (Think here of the narcissist deprived of sources of supply. It won't end up in a converted narcissist; crazy, yes, converted, no. They will survive until they find a fresh victim.)

This isn't an exhaustive list, but it is enough to supply the point that legends of vampirism find their close counterpart in the malignant narcissist. This blog is intended to be the sunlight that destroys these vampiric blood-suckers. Shine the light of truth on who they are and what they do and find them scattering to the dark corners of their lairs. At the very least, the sunlight dispels the hypnotic hold of the vampire on his victims and helps them get free.

Thus concludes my attempt at an overview of malignant narcissism which is the focus of this blog. There are plenty of annoying and petty people out there. That isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about those humans who've embraced evil that stalks its own kind as prey. The most scary aspect of this kind of evil is that is will suck the life blood out of its own young. The children of narcissists are the ones who've seen what evil really is. The narcissist disguises himself when in public view. It is behind closed doors that the fangs come out. Pity the children. Save them if you can.